lederhosen

"...which is something about which a lot of women have very strong feelings indeed."

/me counts to 100, takes several deep breaths to lower her blood pressure

[Bitter irony=ON]
Ya think?
[Bitter irony=OFF. Bitter irony, OFF, dammit! Bitter irony !@#$% OFF, right now!]

/me rips the "Bitter Irony" button out of the control panel and eats it.

From:

darkrosetiger.livejournal.com

ms_manna said, a lot of the reaction was about straws and camels. For me, there was also the combination of:

-- the OP encouraging people to replicate this at other SF cons;

-- the attitude that he was being a Nice Guy by selflessly putting himself in a position where he could feel up random women (and the implied corollary of "You should be thanking me!"); and

-- the cutesy name, which carries the implication that women's bodies should be public property.

His initial refusal to check his fucking privilege only served to escalate...and then he just wouldn't STOP DIGGING.

From:

What the darkrosetiger said. Word. Yup, yup, yup. *nodnodnodnodnod*

My breasts are NOT "open source", and the thought of guys waddling up and asking to touch them gives me the utter, utter, utter skivvy-skanky-squicky willies.

The thought occurs to show up at a con with boxes of padded bras with sewing pins pushed through from the inside and really, really big buttons that say "Go ahead and ask, cause if you don't I'll grab your hand and make you touch them!" and setting up a booth.

Yeah, I'm one of those bitter, man-hating dykes who had her painfully-milk-engorged breasts mauled by her father-in-law, and when I tried to tell him I don't like that, he said "Well, my son gets to do it, so should I".

Then there's Ferrett getting all dewy-eyed about the sacredness of it, the bliss, the joy of it (fine, fine, he's entitled to his feelings) and I'm sitting here remembering my bastard husband telling me "Don't make such a fuss over it, he just spent $XXX on our son, he's drunk, you shouldn't have made such a scene" and I'm getting really, really pissed.

So I'm going to shut the fuck up right now because I can't put together a coherant sentance on why it's such a big deal. But it is, Art, it really, really is.

From:

skwerlbuddy.livejournal.com

Oh dear. *hugs*

From:

*hugs - but very carefully!*

The reason I state 'not such a big deal' is that it sounds like the idea they were trying to perpetuate was for people who were WILLING to be involved in the game (indicated by button), not the demanding of people at random.

I like the idea of people able to be silly, even sexually silly, in a safe place under their own control. The 'shared experience' of conventions allows people to do a lot of wacky stuff that doesn't compare to their mundane lives, and to an extent I think that's valuable. As long as nobody gets hurt and nobody is pressured into things.

I've only just found out about this whole thing and may be missing the particulars, I'm filling in my guesses from the cons I've been to - where, as I mentioned, people wearing signs indicating their willingness to touch strangers were not uncommon.

I definitely do not relish the idea of people being constantly approached by skeezy strangers and suggested to harassment.

From:

lederhosen.livejournal.com

I get why the issue is a big deal. What I don't get is why this particular instance is getting so much attention.

To put this in perspective, look at the Bill O'Reilly sexual harassment allegations a couple of years back, or those against Israel's President and Justice Minister more recently. Far more notable people, and I doubt anybody here would argue that Ferrett's behaviour is worse than that alleged of these people.

But I didn't see my friends list explode about any of those things - I think there were a couple of posts about O'Reilly, none about the others. What makes some guy with a blog more provocative?

From:

I think it's the fact that he was someone who evidently thought he knew better than those classically sexist wankers, and then when it was pointed out to him that while the scenario might not fit everyone in the universe, he refused to get it, despite his protestations about being all about supporting women's sexuality and blah blah de blah.

People always get at someone who is "one of their own" much worse than those morons who you have no hope of changing their mind. We know to avoid the Bill O'Reillys of the world - coming from someone, who again, should know better, it kind of is like being kneecapped from behind (to use an over-the-top analogy). Are all those "nice" "safe" geek boys at cons really sekritly thinking all the time that they want to feel up your tits? [I don't think so, or you know, only at appropriate times, but this moron didn't exactly give geek boys a good name... and it's hard not to generalise when you run across this kind of shit everywhere]

From:

nicked-metal.livejournal.com

Well, once it was explained to him in coherent terms, he backed down, actually.

It can be hard to listen to someone when their rage is distracting you.

From:

Hm, I noticed quite a number of explanations, actually, not all of which were incoherent before he changed his tune.

Personally, I wouldn't have given a toss if he'd said that it was a fun thing he and his (male and female) cronies came up with - it was the attempt to imply that it should be a universal thing that got everyone's backs up.

From:

And since I'm only hearing about it well after the storm, I'm mostly seeing the apologies and explanations and not any obnoxious insistences that everyone should love this, which is probably why I'm falling on the "What's the big deal?" side.

From:

nicked-metal.livejournal.com

Hm, I noticed quite a number of explanations, actually, not all of which were incoherent before he changed his tune.

Yes, and I'm absolutely convinced that the non-incoherent explanations were a significant factor in him changing his tune. Not least because he acknowledges them in the bit where he changes his tune.

Personally, I wouldn't have given a toss if he'd said that it was a fun thing he and his (male and female) cronies came up with - it was the attempt to imply that it should be a universal thing that got everyone's backs up.

Maybe so, but a little personal context is here. This is the same man who talks about how a happy marriage is based on the same principles as a winning Magic deck. He's pretty much incapable of opening his mouth without claiming to have unlocked the secrets of a happier society. While there's generally a grain of truth in what he has to say, a generous helping of salt does not go astray.

I'm disappointed in the people who have been reading him for years (I know with certainty that one of the orchestrators of the feminist reaction was reading him in 2003) that linked to his post and screamed bloody murder. They should have known better.

From:

I don't think he's Teh Ebil - I certainly didn't feel the need to go WAHHHHHH at him myself in his post (I mean, I think a few "do you know how this sounds?" comments were more than sufficient), but, hm, while it was an over-the-top reaction, if it makes a few more people think about over-generalising from a particular set of circs, great.

I mean, I've certainly done the same thing - linked to something eye-rolly - not with the intent for them to be buried under the onslaught and do penance for the next 500 years, but to alert my small circle of like-minded friends to the cluelessness. Unfortunately, these things can go exponential due to the nature of the internets and how many people the situation might resonate with.

I think many of us have had the experience of being disappointed by someone who thinks they are more 'evolved', thus the level of response (although continuing to pile in, after the first couple of dozen comments, was kinda redundant).

From:

nicked-metal.livejournal.com

I have absolutely no problem with people expressing disappointment, I think that the occasional expression of disappointment is vital to a healthy relationship.

but, hm, while it was an over-the-top reaction, if it makes a few more people think about over-generalising from a particular set of circs, great.

Agreed. But the more over-the-top the reaction gets, the more likely it becomes that people will go 'I wish those people would shut up' instead of trying to understand.

From:

Because all of the people who are making it a big deal can't talk to Bill O'Reilly, or Israel's president or the Justice Minister. Because it's not just ferrett, it's all the other folks on LJ who can't seem to understand why the open source boob project is insulting and demeaning. It's because of the backlash against feminism has generated a backlash of its own, because women are sick of being told to accept this sort of thing and if we don't we're insane or over reacting or prudish.

It's causing one hell of a splash, and even those of us on the outer fringes of LJ are feeling the resulting waves.

From:

psychowoof.livejournal.com

The thought occurs to show up at a con with boxes of padded bras with sewing pins pushed through from the inside and really, really big buttons that say "Go ahead and ask, cause if you don't I'll grab your hand and make you touch them!" and setting up a booth

Ooooohhhh! I'm thinking the logistics of getting another garment on over the bra would be a little difficult. Maybe shorter pins would work.....

From:

Nope. I'd wear it OVER my clothes.

From:

torin3.livejournal.com

Didn't really see any of it until

cerebresque pointed to it, and I saw it was ferrett (though the comments weren't visible then). I used to read him, but stopped about a year or two ago.

Since you mentioned it, I took another look at the original post. Yeah, I don't get it either. He may be a lot of things, but I doubt he even gets in the same galaxy as evil incarnate.

From:

I long ago gave up on TheFerrett as unworthy of the attention and fandom he seems to have garnered on LJ. James Nicoll is way less pretentious, sexist or Nice Guy-ish(TM) and has the distinction of penning one of the BEST Intarweb Quotes EVAR, IMO.

And James (the one who pointed to the dispute in question) definitely had it right when he called Ferrett a "sad male fan".

BTW, can someone enlighten me regarding the Harlan Ellison ref? Was/is he known for grabbing boobs at cons?

From:

torin3.livejournal.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlan_Ellison

About halfway down the page, the section titled:
"With Connie Willis at Hugo Awards 2006"

From:

Thank you.

From:

thette.livejournal.com

The Connie Willis episode made it very public, but in the aftermath, there were many female fans writing about being sexually harrassed by Ellison (and other famous SF authors).

From:

oh so THAT'S what the 'May Not' t-shirt was about... my LJ bubble didn't quite touch this story sufficiently for me to get it.

I don't see the fuss, really, simply based on the culture of cons. The last convention I went to, a large number of people were going around with 'Free Hugs' signs and a smaller number with 'Free Glomps' 'Free Gropes' and other such things. (D tried wearing a '$5 Hugs' sign, but didn't get any takers.)

If they were being rude and asking every woman trying to enter a convention hall to present her breasts first, that would be fucked up. If they were running around grabbing, that would be criminal. But from what I can understand of it, the pins thing doesn't sound like that big a deal.

From:

It's rude to walk up to a woman you don't know in a public place and ask if you can touch her boobs. It's rude to invite such questions and accept such touching in a public place. The reason it's rude? It's inconsiderate of the people around you who don't want to be participants by witness to such an exchange.

From:

I agree that it's rude to walk up to a woman you don't know and ask if you can touch her boobs. (unless she is carrying a large and clear sign to indicate that you can. Even at a convention, 'NO' should be assumed!)

I don't personally feel that it's rude to walk up to a woman wearing a 'Touch my breasts!' sign, ask her, and do so, in the specific public space of a con. I am aware that there could be people present who may not wish to be participants by witness, but it's very difficult to live without potentially offending anyone at all. Some people would be offended simply by watching me walk around with a boy on a leash. Some people would be offended by me walking by holding hands with two boys at once. Some people would be offended if I or my partners are wearing 'sexually suggestive clothing' for different definitions of suggestive. Some people would be offended by people kissing in public. (Moreso if they happened to be same-gender).

Geek conventions tend to be something of a sexually charged atmosphere, where people can strut around in ridiculous costumes and otherwise perform openly what they are afraid to perform in Normal Life. I think that's valuable. It is also sometimes a point of vulnerability - I was at DragonCon one year when the cops had to be called because a mundane had snuck into a costume contest and grabbed a contestant's breasts. (WTF was he thinking?)

From:

"unless she is carrying a large and clear sign..."

No. You're missing MY point; The reasons why a person would not want to witness such and exchange doesn't matter; Whether it's because they don't want their children to see it or because, like me, it's triggering.

This is NOT negotiable. This IS a deal breaker. This is NOT consensual. How much clearer can I make this?

Not consensual = sexual assault/harassment . Public spaces, whether at a con or on the street are NOT the place to negotiate crossing boundaries.

From:

The reasons why a person would not want to witness such and exchange doesn't matter; Whether it's because they don't want their children to see it or because, like me, it's triggering.

I'm not sure why you quoted the bit about the sign and not the bit that's relevant to unwanted witnessing of events.

As I said, some people will be deeply disturbed by seeing two men kissing in public. And that does not mean that boys shouldn't kiss. The 'right' of someone to not have themselves and their children 'disturbed' does not extend to forcing others to behave in a certain way.

Many conventions are and have always been sexually charged arenas. Not all of them - single-day non-costume conventions are generally pretty straight. If public sexuality is disturbing to you it's probably a good idea to pick your con wisely. (And avoid furries. :) )

From:

What's the big deal here? It sounds like the sort of thing that always goes on at cons -- groping and in-jokes.

Not *exactly* on the same topic, I really don't get people who hate to be touched. I'm not really comfortable around them, because it's like, you know. I might accidentally touch them and then they'll shatter like an eggshell or something. It's sort of like a passive aggressive be-damaged aura they're constantly running. They're a trap.

From:

I'm not a trap. I'm not passive aggressive. And I really resent being called such. Your ignorance of and utter disregard for my wish not to be made an unwilling witness to such exchanges is insulting to me.

From:

'Unwilling witness'. Yeah. That means you're a trap just by being in the area, and I don't even have to actually interact with you to make you uncomfortable.

I don't want people like you at cons, because they're supposed to be places where you can act weird and be comfortable doing it.

From:

You're a trap just by being in the area, and I don't even have to interact with you to be made uncomfortable.

Why is your need to be groped/grope/witness groping so much more important than my unwillingness?

From:

Because you don't have the right to be a walking injunction imposing your personal quirks on everyone in line of sight. You want to change everyone's behavior to suit yourself.

'Not being able to do stuff' is more important than 'not being able to force everyone in the world to obey arbitrary rules I set for them'. This doesn't really seem like a very hard concept to grasp.

From:

Er. sorry. I jumped down your throat and I apologise. I miss-read your comment. You weren't talking about people who don't want to see breasts being fondled in public spaces.

Still and all, I do find your assertion that people who don't like to be touched as "passive aggressive" is rather unfair. Some of us carry baggage, and we deal with it as best we can. I've dealt with mine, and have come to the point where I can accept that some folks are willing to negotiate such an exchange. That's them, not me. And while that can be perceived as prudish, it's a long way from where I used to be. I have a RIGHT not to be subjected to it in a public space.

From:

I can maybe see a right not to be asked, although I think that's going a bit far. A right not to *see* it is *insane*.

From:

So I'm insane for not wanting to put up with seeing breasts being fondled against my will?

No. I'm not.

It's a matter of context. If I want to see dominance and submission games I'll go to an SM/BD club. I don't want to see it at an SF/F con.

And I don't want people like you at them because of that very reason; You're going to make me uncomfortable. You're a trap I won't walk into.

From:

'Put up with seeing?' Are you *listening* to yourself?

From:

What's wrong with choosing not to be a party-by-proxy to sexual behaviour? I don't exactly consider it assault, but I don't want to see it either, unless I explicitly choose to. What's "insane" about that?

From:

It's a matter of context. If you go to a packed nightclub, you probably expect you're going to see some drunken behavior and some bumping-and-grinding, yes? Whereas you would be quite surprised to see people dancing wildly and sexually together in the middle of a bookstore, and they'd probably be asked to leave.

Many geek conventions have a strong perviness element. Men are walking around in tiny French Maid dresses. Women are walking around wearing nothing but liquid latex or tape. Girls and boys are dragging each other on leashes. Furries are wearing their suits. By a lot of standards this is already sexual behavior.

From: